Media bias is something I once thought didn’t exist. I was a horribly misguided liberal at the time and since everything lined up, more or less, what what I thought, it was easy to think they were being neutral.
And, back then, they at least pretended to be.
Then Donald Trump came along and they stopped pretending. They often still say it, of course, because people expect neutrality from their news, but they keep doing things that make it too obvious to miss unless you want to miss it.
However, at least one journalist is willing to admit it, even if she didn’t really mean to.
Los Angeles Times editorials editor Mariel Garza resigned from the paper Wednesday over what she alleges was the owner's decision to not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris.
"I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent," Garza told Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) on Wednesday. "In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up."
…
Garza called the idea of not endorsing a candidate "perplexing" and potentially "suspicious" for readers.
"I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds—our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters," she said. "We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California."
So she admits that the LA Times is a liberal paper. That’s awfully nice of her.
I mean, we all know, but it was nice of her to at least admit it, though she’s not employed there any longer.
The thing is, there had been a series of editorials attacking Trump. Garza admits it. She also admits that nothing the paper would do would change the outcome of the election in California, which is so in the bag for Harris that Trump isn’t even considered an option for most.
Instead, she’s framing this as some kind of principled stand against evil.
Well, it’s not. It’s a journalist being a crybaby because the owner decided that maybe the paper shouldn’t endorse anyone.
Look, I’ve owned a newspaper. That’s not something most people can say, but I did, and so I understand at least some of the challenges of a newspaper. I can think of a lot of reasons not to offer an endorsement on a presidential race.
But according to the owner, it was the editorial board that decided not to endorse. (And, for the record, the LA Times isn’t the only paper to decline to endorse anyone. The Washington Post did so as well.)
Regardless, Garza let the cat out of the bag. She referred to the LA Times as “a very liberal paper.” That’s true, but they’re supposed to pretend it’s not.
The irony here is that I’d actually prefer it if more papers would do just that. At least then we could have an open discussion of their biases and how that influences their reporting without someone pretending we’re bonkers for even suggesting it.
Except now Garza has admitted it.
What’s sad, though, is her hypocrisy over her whole “stand up” schtick.
Now, I agree that if you see danger, you should make a stand against that danger. The problem is that she and so many like her only think you should do that when the “danger” comes from someone on the right.
When someone sees the danger of someone like Harris, all too often they prefer people to sit down and shut up.
Where was Garza when an untold number of people saw their livelihoods destroyed simply because they wouldn’t toe the progressive line? Where was she when people were threatened for standing against things like transitioning children or against gun control?
Are others not entitled to stand against what they think is dangerous?
But then again, Garza worked for the LA Times, a leftist newspaper by her own admission, so of course she didn’t.
Her admission, though, means that everything the paper says going forward needs to be considered through the lens of how they’re trying to advance the leftist narrative.
Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here. You can also check out our check out our store. Your support is greatly appreciated.
uh, no.
First it's an editorial. Editorials, like columns are opinion based. So having an opinion in an editorial is expected. Nothing wrong with that. Columnists with left or right opinions are expected. The WSJ has a conservative opinion page, the NYT a liberal one. It's when the bias leaks over to the news section that it becomes a problem, especially when it becomes more than bias and starts becoming dishonesty.
Everyone is biased. I'm biased in favor of chocolate ice cream as opposed to vanilla. Even more so vis-a-vis strawberry. And don't get me started on pumpkin. There are mechanisms to deal with it.
Problems arises when the pretense is bias doesn't exist and as said above lead to dishonesty.
Old Joke:
Reporter is called in to his editors office and told to interview a D and an R office holder about an upcoming bill dealing with children. Goes out, comes back, files the story. Is called into the editors office and told he is fired. Asks why. Editor tells him. I told you to ask the D&R about the new bill and children. Reporter says I did. I asked the D is he liked children, thought they should be love, protected and taken care of. I asked the R if he's molested any children lately , if they should be sent to workhouses and sleep on the streets. Asked both about children, so why are you firing me. In the modern version the reporter is a woman, sues to get her job back, does, and the editor is fired.
What the media doesn't tell you is as important as what they do. Hunter's lap top for example. Also the lack or complete absence of timely corrections. Not to mention burying them at the bottom of said editorial pages, over use of anonymous sources, etc.
There used to be a game called Name That Party. If a politician was caught doing something illegal and an R the Party would be mentioned in the first three paragraphs. If it wasn't, the pol would probably be a D. Many small papers would truncate the last few paragraphs of a story. If a story came over the wire and the Party was mentioned in the bottom it was a D. Also given the newspaper style of writing many people would only read the first few paragraphs.
It's not the bias, it's the lying.